There are many plaster cast copies of Michelangelo's David in existence. They weigh less than the six-ton marble original; solid marble weighs 160 lbs per cubic foot, while plaster weighs 53 lbs per cubic foot. Per your definition of size, although they are of identical physical dimensions and displace identical volumes of identical shape, plaster-cast David and the original David are NOT the same size.

So, if a precise plaster cast copy of David is not, by your definition, the same size as the original David, how much taller would plaster cast David have to be than actual David to be the same size as actual David?

Show your work.

Asshole- it's not my definition of size.

As I said a person's size includes their height and weight.

Do you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

--------------Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

"I know you are but what am I."

QED.

So, Joe, you're saying you just measured the CSI of the definition of an aardvark?

Okay.

Why?

And you still didn't explain whether or not the CSI is the same in other languages.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

We thus define the specified complexity of T given H (minus the tilde and context sensitivity) asX = –log2[ 10^120 · S(T)·P(T|H)]....It follows that if 10^120 · S(T)·P(T|H) < 1/2 or, equivalently, that if X = –log2[ 10^120 · S(T)·P(T|H)] > 1, then it is less likely than not on the scale of the whole universe, with all replicational and specificational resources factored in, that E should have occurred according to the chance hypothesis H. Consequently, we should think that E occurred by some process other than one characterized by H.

It is interesting how many ID proponents have not taken the time to understand Dembski's calculation for "specified complexity".

Specified Complexity is nothing more than a fancy way of saying if "...it is less likely than not... [something came about] ...according to the chance hypothesis H...[then it] ...occurred by some process other than one characterized by H."

Dembski then argues design is the only possible alternative.

This is old news and has been argued by people much smarter than I.

My argument with all of this is where anyone, including Dembski, is justified in assuming anything happens by "chance"? Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic. We don't know it is random.

Oops. 10^120, 10^150, what's 30 orders of magnitude between friends. Chump change. I wasn't even off by a whole dembski

Quote

Error in dembskis

That error might be measured in a unit called "dembskis" that scaled things in terms of orders of magnitude came up in discussion of errors in an essay by Marks and Dembski. The reference unit of error for the measure is taken from the case mentioned above in the M/N ratio calculation note, where Dembski had an error of about 65 orders of magnitude. "Dave W." formalized the notion with an equation, and W. Kevin Vicklund suggested using a rounded-off value of 150 as the constant in the denominator, based upon Dembski's figure of 10^150 as a universal small probability. Thus, the final form of quantifying error in dembskis (Reed Cartwright proposed the symbol ?) is

? = | ln(erroneous measure) - ln(correct measure) | / 150

There is not yet a consensus on what to term the unit, but two proposals being considered are "Dmb" and "duns".

ETA: Hat tip to Wes for link above

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad